| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conservapedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Conservapedia is not down, many users receive errors when visiting because their IP range is blocked by admins of the site.[1][2] |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Conservapedia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Conservapedia at the Reference desk. |
 | Conservapedia has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Spelling
editWe certainly should be using American spelling Partofthemachine – no leftist bias on Wikipedia. Rwood128 (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- https://simple.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Spelling
- Sorry, but the "leftist bias" is allowed by the rules. Don't like it, conservapedia could use some writers. I'm sure they'd appreciate you there. 2600:100F:A102:9811:1C4E:8BDD:7FB9:B5B0 (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, a bias of any kind, including a leftist bias, is against Wikipedia's policy on neutrality (see: WP:Neutrality) unless strictly necessary to display objective truth. It is stated in the policy that information must be represented "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias" Mr. Rod2 (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wrong. NPOV does not mean what you think it means. You should actually read it instead of just linking it, especially the WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI parts. Also, WP:YESBIAS. Note that "leftist bias" is in quotes in the contribution above. That is because the right-wing science haters like to call "not rejecting science the way Conservapedia does" "leftist bias".
- WP:YWAB is also a good pagfe for you to read. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I will make sure that I understand what I’m saying properly before I say it. And I will probably the read stuff you said (when I can eventually be bothered to). Mr. Rod2 (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, a bias of any kind, including a leftist bias, is against Wikipedia's policy on neutrality (see: WP:Neutrality) unless strictly necessary to display objective truth. It is stated in the policy that information must be represented "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias" Mr. Rod2 (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Fake News Website?
editI know it's counter-programming for Wikipedia's 'liberal' backdrop, but Conservapedia has peddled fluff-pieces by mis-contextualising current affairs and pretending that the articles they promote are helping their own cause. Internet Informant (talk) 17:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
i love the lack of accountability on this article
edit"b-b-but we don't have left leaning bias! we just happen to deface every single republican politicians/presidents page with misleading statesments" full of shit VerseWiki (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm... no! Wikipedia reflects the mainstream press and mainstream academic sources. Conservapedia peddles too much rank pseudoscience to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. And I'm a neoliberal (Reagan, Thatcher, Bush 41). tgeorgescu (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)